Is Satan running this country? (I'm not religious, but..)

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

marieholmfan wrote: »

100% ! Anyway Ireland is being freed from Satan's clutches. remember that the devil's signature is in St Peter's in Rome.

I'd argue Dail Eireann, the Whitehouse, Westminster and so on.

"Only when the last politican is hanged using the entrails of the last priest will mankind truly be free"

nozzferrahhtoo

Paul Lee wrote: »

Abortion on demand is OK

And so it should be. We had thread after thread after thread on the topic and the anti-choice crowd failed utterly to indict it morally or ethically. The "best" we got was one user screeching over and over that the fetus can move it's tongue and another user saying that... wait for it.... allowing abortion is a method to oppress poor women into staying poor.

See I do not break the world up into american style discourse of "left/right" "liberal/conservative". I break it up into subjects to be discussed and explored on THEIR OWN merits or demerits. And if someone can not morally or ethically indict something like abortion then I fall back on one of my few axioms in life. "Innocent until proven guilty".

In the US this left/write divide has been a mess and I do not know why we need to import it here into either our speech or our policies. The american left, the vocal part anyway as I do not see them as representative of the whole, is self-immolating in an awful way and I have never seen any group go after it's own so readily, and so viciously, as they have tended to.

Paul Lee wrote: »

Teaching children about masturbation is OK

There is nothing in and of itself wrong with teaching children about sex, sexuality, or masturbation. Whether it is wrong or right ENTIRELY depends on what we are teaching them, how we are teaching it to them, and what the goal of teaching it actually is. Without full detailed analysis of those three headings, I would not even begin to comment on whether it is right or wrong or "OK".

Paul Lee wrote: »

People are being imprisoned for non payment of VAT while pedophiles get off free.

I assume by paedophiles that you mean something like child rapists, pederasts, or child abusers? Because there is absolutely nothing wrong with merely BEING a paedophile. And certainly no basis for them being imprisoned. But yes I would, like you it seems, prioritise justice against, and rehabilitation for, such criminals over tax defaulters.

Paul Lee wrote: »

Lying is acceptable (if you're of the "liberal" persuasion.)

That does not map onto my experience really. But again there is that "liberal" american speak that has infected our discourse here in Ireland. I do not see it as a useful label or distinction most of the time. Actually one of the bloggers who is probably the most "Liberal" identifying of all the bloggers I read or listen to.... Sam Harris..... wrote a (free to download I think) short book against Lying in almost all it's forms. He thinks it is never, or almost never, the right thing to do morally. Even in several thought experiments where most people say they would lie and it would be the right thing to do. Maybe read it, it's quite short.

Paul Lee wrote: »

Thinking there are only two genders is some kind of crazy idea.

Again whether the idea is sound or not entirely depends on what you mean by it. The word "gender" means too many different things to too many different people. And to confuse things more people often flip between "sex" and "gender" as if they are 1:1 synonyms.

It can mean something as granular as the XY chromosome.... or it can mean the entire genome with all the other sex related genes across other base pairs too.... or it can mean the entire expression of the genotype or phenotype.... or it can mean the social constructs of gender we operate under as a society. And so on. Whatever about all of these things.... certainly in some of them still thinking there is only two genders would be pretty "crazy". Though I am not sure "crazy" is a useful word here. I would replace it with "not really operating on a sound basis of fact". Here is a quick enough summary of a few related concepts for example.

Paul Lee wrote: »

Ireland is going to hell in a handbasket and very few seem to care.

I fear "do not care" in many cases actually means "Do not agree with Paul Lee". Because when we look at the recent referendums on Gay Marriage and Abortion.... voter turn out..... how so many people campaigned on it..... it is clear to me that a lot of people do care. Deeply.

The problem seems to be that they did not campaign or fight for what YOU believe or agree with. But them not aligning with you in no way suggests they do not care. They care deeply. They just think YOUR positions on such matters are unsubstantiated tosh.

Paul Lee wrote: »

You disagree. Thats fine. So why do we need hate speech laws?

Here I would be slow to disagree with you. I find myself very rarely agreeing with laws and controls on speech. Not never of course. Just rarely. Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry did a pretty good talk, nearly all of which I agreed with, on the limits of free speech.

Certainly if we are living in a world where, to cite a recent enough example, a person can not even use the word n*gg*r in the context of speaking about why we should not ever be using the word n*gg*r..... because he will be head hunted by the very people who's argument on the topic he was making and supporting.... then something has gone very very wrong.

I am for a world where, with limits like incitement to violence and other crimes, there should be pretty much no limit on what people say. If someone wants to deny the holocaust or claim they believe black people are inferior to whites or that all Jewish people are evil..... I want to hear them say it. I want them to be able to say it. And I want them to pay the proper price of credibility for having said it. I am a "better the devil you know" kind of person. I want to know who these people are and what they think, rather than having them operate in the dark pretending to be other than they are.

Paul Lee wrote: »

I'm not a believer but I'd call myself a secular Christian. I do have a desire to believe in God even if I can't quite buy in. If we cant look to the transcendent then we're genuinely screwed.

As people better than I have said it is important to separate the numinous from the divine too however. I can believe in the transcendent without believing in unsubstantiated nonsense like the existence of gods. We can "look to the transcendent" without entertaining thoughts of, let alone share your yearnings for, a divine dictatorship or imaginary friends in the sky. I do not think we "need god" at all, real or allegory. And despite your assertion to the contrary, you are not offering reasons why we might either.

Paul Lee wrote: »

Why does just about every culture on the planet believe in a God? It turns out to be Darwinian selection. Down through history- don't follow God, then you don't get to pass on your genes.

You are kind of right and kind of wrong here I would suspect, if you want to appear to evolution by selection. I do not think you are at all right that non belief in god prevented you from passing on your genes.

Rather you could ask an analogous question. Why does just about every culture on the planet have the common cold? It is not because failing to catch the common cold prevented you from passing on your genes. It IS because the things that DO let you pass on your genes also happen to be things that the common cold has itself evolved to commandeer and bend to it's own means.

Similarly I suspect religious thinking not to itself be something that conferred a selection advantage but is itself a form of memetic virus that itself has evolved to take advantage of other beneficial human traits in order to perpetuate itself.

Paul Lee wrote: »

I'd say your inability to comprehend what I just said is much more of an impediment to your future potential parenthood. I'd focus on that.

In your OP you suggested you learned a lot from being banned from another thread. I would suspect that responding at THIS level of adhominem and personal invective, along with a few other examples from this thread to other users on the thread, would be suggestive of the exact contrary. That you have not learned from your ban at all and actual want to get pseudo-martyred by getting banned again so you can enact a real world version of the Monty Python "Help Im being oppressed" scene. I'd focus on that.

Paul Lee wrote: »

Ah yes, the classic "spend hours defining stuff for me." lark. Lefties do that all the time. No thanks. I'll leave it to you to interpret/ misinterpret any way you wish.

Again you are taking something that is common in MANY people and just pretending "the left" suffer from it. You were wrong to do this above with "Lying" and you are just as wrong to do it here.

You should pop over to the current active thread on the Atheism forum. There is one person and one person only there playing the "lets define words for hours because I have no actual argument to make otherwise" card and I doubt you will be identifying HIM as "leftist". He is as religious and conservative as they come.

Defining terms is a cross species rhetorical tool, not a "left" one. Sometimes it is a useful tool. Sometimes it is a deflationary tactic. But the same can be said of just about any rhetorical tool too.

Paul Lee

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And so it should be. We had thread after thread after thread on the topic and the anti-choice crowd failed utterly to indict it morally or ethically. The "best" we got was one user screeching over and over that the fetus can move it's tongue and another user saying that... wait for it.... allowing abortion is a method to oppress poor women into staying poor.

See I do not break the world up into american style discourse of "left/right" "liberal/conservative". I break it up into subjects to be discussed and explored on THEIR OWN merits or demerits. And if someone can not morally or ethically indict something like abortion then I fall back on one of my few axioms in life. "Innocent until proven guilty".

In the US this left/write divide has been a mess and I do not know why we need to import it here into either our speech or our policies. The american left, the vocal part anyway as I do not see them as representative of the whole, is self-immolating in an awful way and I have never seen any group go after it's own so readily, and so viciously, as they have tended to.



There is nothing in and of itself wrong with teaching children about sex, sexuality, or masturbation. Whether it is wrong or right ENTIRELY depends on what we are teaching them, how we are teaching it to them, and what the goal of teaching it actually is. Without full detailed analysis of those three headings, I would not even begin to comment on whether it is right or wrong or "OK".



I assume by paedophiles that you mean something like child rapists, pederasts, or child abusers? Because there is absolutely nothing wrong with merely BEING a paedophile. And certainly no basis for them being imprisoned. But yes I would, like you it seems, prioritise justice against, and rehabilitation for, such criminals over tax defaulters.



That does not map onto my experience really. But again there is that "liberal" american speak that has infected our discourse here in Ireland. I do not see it as a useful label or distinction most of the time. Actually one of the bloggers who is probably the most "Liberal" identifying of all the bloggers I read or listen to.... Sam Harris..... wrote a (free to download I think) short book against Lying in almost all it's forms. He thinks it is never, or almost never, the right thing to do morally. Even in several thought experiments where most people say they would lie and it would be the right thing to do. Maybe read it, it's quite short.



Again whether the idea is sound or not entirely depends on what you mean by it. The word "gender" means too many different things to too many different people. And to confuse things more people often flip between "sex" and "gender" as if they are 1:1 synonyms.

It can mean something as granular as the XY chromosome.... or it can mean the entire genome with all the other sex related genes across other base pairs too.... or it can mean the entire expression of the genotype or phenotype.... or it can mean the social constructs of gender we operate under as a society. And so on. Whatever about all of these things.... certainly in some of them still thinking there is only two genders would be pretty "crazy". Though I am not sure "crazy" is a useful word here. I would replace it with "not really operating on a sound basis of fact". Here is a quick enough summary of a few related concepts for example.



I fear "do not care" in many cases actually means "Do not agree with Paul Lee". Because when we look at the recent referendums on Gay Marriage and Abortion.... voter turn out..... how so many people campaigned on it..... it is clear to me that a lot of people do care. Deeply.

The problem seems to be that they did not campaign or fight for what YOU believe or agree with. But them not aligning with you in no way suggests they do not care. They care deeply. They just think YOUR positions on such matters are unsubstantiated tosh.



Here I would be slow to disagree with you. I find myself very rarely agreeing with laws and controls on speech. Not never of course. Just rarely. Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry did a pretty good talk, nearly all of which I agreed with, on the limits of free speech.

Certainly if we are living in a world where, to cite a recent enough example, a person can not even use the word n*gg*r in the context of speaking about why we should not ever be using the word n*gg*r..... because he will be head hunted by the very people who's argument on the topic he was making and supporting.... then something has gone very very wrong.

I am for a world where, with limits like incitement to violence and other crimes, there should be pretty much no limit on what people say. If someone wants to deny the holocaust or claim they believe black people are inferior to whites or that all Jewish people are evil..... I want to hear them say it. I want them to be able to say it. And I want them to pay the proper price of credibility for having said it. I am a "better the devil you know" kind of person. I want to know who these people are and what they think, rather than having them operate in the dark pretending to be other than they are.



As people better than I have said it is important to separate the numinous from the divine too however. I can believe in the transcendent without believing in unsubstantiated nonsense like the existence of gods. We can "look to the transcendent" without entertaining thoughts of, let alone share your yearnings for, a divine dictatorship or imaginary friends in the sky. I do not think we "need god" at all, real or allegory. And despite your assertion to the contrary, you are not offering reasons why we might either.



You are kind of right and kind of wrong here I would suspect, if you want to appear to evolution by selection. I do not think you are at all right that non belief in god prevented you from passing on your genes.

Rather you could ask an analogous question. Why does just about every culture on the planet have the common cold? It is not because failing to catch the common cold prevented you from passing on your genes. It IS because the things that DO let you pass on your genes also happen to be things that the common cold has itself evolved to commandeer and bend to it's own means.

Similarly I suspect religious thinking not to itself be something that conferred a selection advantage but is itself a form of memetic virus that itself has evolved to take advantage of other beneficial human traits in order to perpetuate itself.



In your OP you suggested you learned a lot from being banned from another thread. I would suspect that responding at THIS level of adhominem and personal invective, along with a few other examples from this thread to other users on the thread, would be suggestive of the exact contrary. That you have not learned from your ban at all and actual want to get pseudo-martyred by getting banned again so you can enact a real world version of the Monty Python "Help Im being oppressed" scene. I'd focus on that.



Again you are taking something that is common in MANY people and just pretending "the left" suffer from it. You were wrong to do this above with "Lying" and you are just as wrong to do it here.

You should pop over to the current active thread on the Atheism forum. There is one person and one person only there playing the "lets define words for hours because I have no actual argument to make otherwise" card and I doubt you will be identifying HIM as "leftist". He is as religious and conservative as they come.

Defining terms is a cross species rhetorical tool, not a "left" one. Sometimes it is a useful tool. Sometimes it is a deflationary tactic. But the same can be said of just about any rhetorical tool too.

Fair play to you for an intelligent and detailed response. Each response would almost need it's own thread and unfortunately no-one has the time for that.

I'll take task with just a couple of things: One is this idea that everyone needs to agree with "Paul Lee".

Plain wrong.

All I insist on is that people don't lie or be inconsistent in their arguments. If someone can point me to a better opinion or better information than mine then I really want to hear and understand it.

This old concept of "truth" is what I'm interested in. I know that's a deep rabbit hole and we don't have the time or place for that. But to talk about truth we need logic as a framework.

I once had a brief conversation about "logic" with someone in a real discussion who quipped "Oh you mean your logic" to which I responded "No, just logic." Then we started to debate but got interrupted...

Anyway...

If we can't agree that there's only one logic that exists independently of either protagonist then there's no fruitful discussion to be had. We might as well make incoherent noises instead of words.


Next..

"I'd say your inability to comprehend what I just said is much more of an impediment to your future potential parenthood. I'd focus on that."

Saying that the above is "out of bounds" gives me the impression that you have a lot lower expectations for dialogue in this forum than I have. If that's an unacceptable attack then I really have no problem with being banned because that means this forum would be a waste of my time. The lessons I have learned are about the culture on this forum- how sensitive people are, and how seriously they take comments. The tendency to go running to Daddy for assistance when feeling hurt. An inability to take it on the chin. Also some raw technical facts about how the moderators and DMs work on this forum. Other than that, no I haven't learned a whole lot.

The above line was well written, true, and actually I'm rather proud of it. You may have noted it also contained humor (you know.. humor/ sarcasm? Anyone.. Bueller?... Anyone?)

Your points about being a pedophile- If someone told me they were a pedophile I would then discuss with them how we were going to make sure that they never ever got near a child. The discussion would include amongst other things, being incarcerated for life- Tough for the pedophile but not doing it is tougher on the victim- An innocent child. There's no argument in that toss-up. If you have children yourself then the issue raises to a whole new level where liberty for the pedophile stops being of much concern at all. That's just reality.

Gender-

We can talk to infinity about gender. Until recently there were two, but like deep space explorers we found life on Mars. I know things are more complicated for a tiny tiny miniscule genuine minority of people.

I knew someone who was intersex. I only discovered that she (she was a girl, or that's how she identified.) was intersex when I read about her death in the newspaper. I didn't even know what the word meant at the time. She was a lovely intelligent creative person and it was very sad to hear about her passing.

For the sake of humanity we have to deal with some "norms" Nature does not care about feelings- She is very cruel that way. As far as nature is concerned, with some very minor exceptions there are two genders. That's it.

Most of the gender fluid phenomena are purely psychological- Known by professional psychologists as "body dismorphia" and as I've heard from someone dealing with psych cases, it has replaced the previously popular psychological phenomenon- anorexia- which has now fallen out of fashion.

Again, I acknowledge your desire to discuss. I'm not interested in getting anyone to agree with me. That's their decision.

Paul Lee

Snow Garden wrote: »

Correct and I have huge faith in our young generation to make it even better. They get a lot of criticism but I think they are superb. Brave and honest with far less 'baggage'.

That's a lot of fine praise. What incredible odds have the young generation overcome to make them such fine accomplished people? Without sacrifice there is no human development. That's just physics.

Please keep in mind I'm not just trying to be mean here. I'm just asking some hard questions in the hope of learning something valuable.

Paul Lee

storker wrote: »

You'd wonder how he finds the time...

He doesn't need to. He's an absolute g******e which takes no effort at all. He doesn't give a sh1t about you or me, but neither do 99% of the Dáil.

Paul Lee

dvdman1 wrote: »

The OP is a good person and i agree 100% on the points in his statement, a lot of people feel exactly the same.

There is no outlet for us to air our views but lots of people are on your side.

The religious nutz have made people of good ethics and morals look like there flying there flag but were not.

Its a sick state of affairs Ireland

Thanks for the support. It's truth I'm interested in. OK,I have to admit I love pissing off liberals because of their general arrogance which is often really funny. But I must earn my ability to do so by (hopefully) being entertaining.

rossie1977

normanoffside wrote: »

First comment under that video :eek:

First time hearing about that site but it does seem quite a few here are frequent watchers.

This kind of rhetoric is why we are seeing a huge increase in far right terrorism in Western society. This is basically call to arms..

Great video, Ireland has been infiltrated by Communist Jews. Our leader is a homosexual degenerate communist puppet. Who does the bidding of the Zionist EU and Jews. Ireland is being invaded by Muslim and Africans, they are trying to exterminate the White native Irish population. This is all of course the plan of the Jews and Freemasons. But there is hope patriots, let us raise our voices. Let us stand united and firm in our resolve. Erin Go Braugh my brothers. ERIN GO BRAUGH

If I just change a few words ie muslims to Christians and Erin go braugh to Allahu Akbar it becomes an Islamic terrorism call

Paul Lee

rossie1977 wrote: »

First time hearing about that site but it does seem quite a few here are frequent watchers.

This kind of rhetoric is why we are seeing a huge increase in far right terrorism in Western society. This is basically call to arms..


If I just change a few words ie muslims to Christians and Erin go braugh to Allahu Akbar it becomes an Islamic terrorism call

Yes the EU/ NATO bombing of Libya, Iraq Afghanistan and Syria would certainly be classed as acts of far-right terrorism and they are being conducted by governments (that the majority of the Western populace support by way of voting for the mainstream political parties- which makes the majority of the Western electorate effectively pro-terrorist.))

People are shouting "terrorist!" while supporting terrorism against innocent foreigners whilst simultaneously waging war against our own poor in our own countries.

People are shouting "far right!" while being far right.
People are shouting "racist!" while being racist.
etc.

Pretty sick stuff.

Treppen

I always thought Charlie Haughey had a whiff of sulphur from him. And that smile too, like he just caught you doing something perfect for his blackmail plot.

Paul Lee

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I'd argue Dail Eireann, the Whitehouse, Westminster and so on.

"Only when the last politican is hanged using the entrails of the last priest will mankind truly be free"

I agree. F*ck Satan whether he's in a priests garb, in the Bundestag, the Dáil, or running some fuzzy themed charity like "hope not hate" the fascist George Soros funded organisation which does the exact opposite of what it says.

rossie1977

Paul Lee wrote: »

Yes the EU/ NATO bombing of Libya, Iraq Afghanistan and Syria would certainly be classed as acts of far-right terrorism and they are being conducted by governments (that the majority of the Western populace support by way of voting for the mainstream political parties- which makes the majority of the Western electorate effectively pro-terrorist.))

People are shouting "terrorist!" while supporting terrorism against innocent foreigners whilst simultaneously waging war against our own poor in our own countries.

People are shouting "far right!" while being far right.
People are shouting "racist!" while being racist.
etc.

Pretty sick stuff.

What?

The EU/NATO didn't bomb Libya and Syria unprovoked. They were bombing military targets of the murderous Gaddafi and Assad regimes who were performing genocide on their own people.

That's not far right.

jjpep

Paul Lee wrote: »

This thread is inspired by my experiences in the thread about Sex Education in Schools.

Full disclosure.... I was banned off that thread. A few lessons learned, but this subject probably needs it's own thread anyway. Ireland is entering a kind of Dark Age where:

Abortion on demand is OK
Teaching children about masturbation is OK
People are being imprisoned for non payment of VAT while pedophiles get off free.
Lying is acceptable (if you're of the "liberal" persuasion.)
Speaking about mass immigration is "racist"
Speaking about the origins of new violent trends is "racist"
Thinking there are only two genders is some kind of crazy idea.
Free speech is "racist" "bigoted" etc.

Like the title says above, it's as if Satan is running the show here. There's a kind of evil in the air. It seems to be contained in Marxism. It doesn't matter what you call it really but it has the following characteristics:

• Unaccountable Political control.
• Centrally controlled monetary policy based on debt and infinite inflation.
• Housing "crisis" alongside empty houses (akin to suspending gravity)
• Laws being drafted by private elite entities and new global government organisations/ NGOs (UN, NATO, EU, Open Society (George Soros and the remaining Koch Brother) and passed without consultation.
• Referenda being re-run when the usual suspects don't get their way.
• New "Hate Speech" Laws (which only promote hate by suppressing dialogue).

Ireland is going to hell in a handbasket and very few seem to care. The same scenario is being played out in the US, South Africa, Sweden, France, Germany, Venezuela, Chile.

People talk a lot about things they know nothing about. It's as if we've forgotten history yet again. A fertile ground for evil.

It's cool that nowadays you don't even have to leave boards to get a good dose of the info wars/Gemma o d type crazy

Professor Moriarty

Paul Lee wrote: »

I agree. F*ck Satan whether he's in a priests garb, in the Bundestag, the Dáil, or running some fuzzy themed charity like "hope not hate" the fascist George Soros funded organisation which does the exact opposite of what it says.

Jaysus.

M.T. Cranium

He's good at delegating so probably not.

rossie1977

Paul Lee wrote: »

Yes. Democracy such as it was has all but died. Now we're practically China. There is only one party to choose from- and they're only getting started on the slippery slope.

It sounds like hyperbole. Market traders flourish on the ignorance of people. That's how Wall Street makes it's money. Belief in a market peaks just before a crash. Same thing applies in politics and culture. No-one will admit we're sliding into chaos. Until long after the fact has become blatantly obvious. Actually we're already there as far as I'm concerned. Go to Balbriggan- I haven't been there admittedly but they've been on the news- Gangs of "new Irish" are causing havoc there.

Don't get me wrong. It's the indigenous Irish that I'm more prejudiced against than any other group. I'm one of them so there you go. I think we Irish left on this island are in general indeed a bit thick. And a little bit evil too. I think it's a choice more than anything else. We choose to be thick and evil.

There's a saying that traders have- "Don't believe anything until it's been officially denied."

Practically China..

Yes as someone who transits between China quite often there is no difference between Ireland and China..

China is a police state where if you do anything the communist party considers a no-no you disappear.

China values the supremacy of the military above everything else.

China and it's citizens are extremely nationalistic.

The Chinese government does what it wants. They can level vast areas of cities like Shanghai and Beijing and nobody can say anything. On flip side the biggest transportation projects on Earth are able to be constructed with no objections.

Government controls all the means of communication meaning nothing negative towards the government is allowed.

So yeah Ireland is nothing like China, not even close. Immigration into China is next to impossible too unless you are fluent in Mandarin, highly educated etc.

Paul Lee

rossie1977 wrote: »

What?

The EU/NATO didn't bomb Libya and Syria unprovoked. They were bombing military targets of the murderous Gaddafi and Assad regimes who were performing genocide on their own people.

That's not far right.

You're thinking of the propaganda that was sold by the western press. I fell for it too. Libya was doing OK but Gadaffi wanted to move to the gold standard so France Britain backed by the US bombed the **** out of the whole country and he literally got a bayonet shoved up his ass by the CIA.

Same for Saddam Hussein. He wanted to start selling oil in Euros instead of dollars. Hanged in a way where his head nearly came off.

Strangely someone made sure that footage containing the above made it to YouTube.

I'm not saying these were nice guys. They were a**holes, but not half as bad as Tony Blair, George Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump or Hilary Clinton.

We vote for the biggest psychopaths. And we still support Saudi Arabia while taking their money to build proselytising Mosques in Ireland to export terrorism to Europe.

Paul Lee

jjpep wrote: »

It's cool that nowadays you don't even have to leave boards to get a good dose of the info wars/Gemma o d type crazy

I know it's mad some people disagree with you. Thankfully you can just dismiss such people as crazy and throw out a few names to associate any such troublesome opinions or facts with certain people so no worries. And you can then sit comfortably back in your bubble.

Paul Lee

rossie1977 wrote: »

Practically China..

Yes as someone who transits between China quite often there is no difference between Ireland and China..

China is a police state where if you do anything the communist party considers a no-no you disappear.

China values the supremacy of the military above everything else.

China and it's citizens are extremely nationalistic.

The Chinese government does what it wants. They can level vast areas of cities like Shanghai and Beijing and nobody can say anything. On flip side the biggest transportation projects on Earth are able to be constructed with no objections.

Government controls all the means of communication meaning nothing negative towards the government is allowed.

So yeah Ireland is nothing like China, not even close. Immigration into China is next to impossible too unless you are fluent in Mandarin, highly educated etc.

People tend to be a little over-literal on this forum. "Practically China" is obviously not a literal phrase. However the EU is heading in that direction. We may get to a China level of control or we might not. But if we stand around doing nothing it's inevitable. In some ways we're already worse than China, with our transgender and Muslim preoccupations.

pjohnson

And now comes the Soros card :pac:

Professor Moriarty

Paul Lee wrote: »

People tend to be a little over-literal on this forum. "Practically China" is obviously not a literal phrase. However the EU is heading in that direction. We may get to a China level of control or we might not. But if we stand around doing nothing it's inevitable. In some ways we're already worse than China, with our transgender and Muslim preoccupations.

Would you be a little preoccupied yourself, Ted?

Paul Lee

pjohnson wrote: »

And now comes the Soros card :pac:

Yes Soros is the sh1t that just won't flush I'm afraid.

But why does that bother you?

Paul Lee

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Would you be a little preoccupied yourself, Ted?

Yes I think that's a fair assessment. I'm very preoccupied about these things.

Paul Lee

Paul Lee wrote: »

I know it's mad some people disagree with you. Thankfully you can just dismiss such people as crazy and throw out a few names to associate any such troublesome opinions or facts with certain people so no worries. And you can then sit comfortably back in your bubble.

Nope gems and co are real bastards that's an actual fact. So far when you have been asked to provide actual evidence for your opinions and your op and the only thing that you have provided apart from ramblings and "the left" is bitchute, which as pointed out is a collection of some of the biggest arsewipes currently doing the rounds at the moment, and appeals to what would be kindly referred to as basement dwellers who like living in their own little hate filled bubble but want to feel like their not the only ones, while trying to dress it up as free speech.
The thing is that the majority of posters on here who do so tend to be reregs and secondary accounts, so they sort of are really the minority and then some.

Professor Moriarty

Paul Lee wrote: »

Yes I think that's a fair assessment. I'm very preoccupied about these things.

Life is short. Don't be worrying about things beyond your control.

ohnonotgmail

Paul Lee wrote: »

I agree. F*ck Satan whether he's in a priests garb, in the Bundestag, the Dáil, or running some fuzzy themed charity like "hope not hate" the fascist George Soros funded organisation which does the exact opposite of what it says.

and the mask finally slips. in fairness it took a bit longer than it normally does.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and the mask finally slips. in fairness it took a bit longer than it normally does.

Ah they just updated their script a bit for the slow burn, the last two accounts that had the same "ideas" and were promoting bitchute dropped the Soros links a little bit to early in the game.

pauldla

Paul Lee wrote: »

I agree. F*ck Satan whether he's in a priests garb, in the Bundestag, the Dáil, or running some fuzzy themed charity like "hope not hate" the fascist George Soros funded organisation which does the exact opposite of what it says.

Just out of interest, have you been sending messages to Colm O'Gorman on Twitter....?

pjohnson

Paul Lee wrote: »

Yes Soros is the sh1t that just won't flush I'm afraid.

But why does that bother you?

It doesnt bother me, I'm just proud you completed your alt-right lunatic bingo card script.

Shuhada Davitt

i dont think what you are seeing is "evil" as such, but i definitely agree that people have somewhat changed, and irish society is becoming a lot colder and meaner.

i dont think it's based on people being more "evil" though, i think a lot of it has to do with people becoming really really stupid and self centred in the last decade or so since social media has become more insidious.

all i see on the streets of dublin every day are people with their heads down looking into their black screens. it's madness.

the world unfortunately has become a pit of narcissism and vanity, and people are going around the place genuinely believing that they are "the best" or better than everyone else.

this can be demonstrated by the fact that when i was a teenager in the 90s, the ugly kids, fat kids, kids with acne, kids with horrible personalities - they all had zero confidence. nowadays, people have become so vain and self-absorbed that even the ugliest sinner thinks they are some sort of gorgeous celebrity.

that to me is proof of the selfishness of modern people, and i think it's mainly due to the nature of social media and the influence that it all has on peoples psyche these days.

it appears "evil" but it's just really dumb. the dumbing down of society.

rossie1977

Paul Lee wrote: »

I agree. F*ck Satan whether he's in a priests garb, in the Bundestag, the D, or running some fuzzy themed charity like "hope not hate" the fascist George Soros funded organisation which does the exact opposite of what it says.

Define what a fascist is. This should be interesting.

Paul Lee wrote: »

You're thinking of the propaganda that was sold by the western press. I fell for it too. Libya was doing OK but Gadaffi wanted to move to the gold standard so France Britain backed by the US bombed the **** out of the whole country and he literally got a bayonet shoved up his ass by the CIA.

Same for Saddam Hussein. He wanted to start selling oil in Euros instead of dollars. Hanged in a way where his head nearly came off.

Strangely someone made sure that footage containing the above made it to YouTube.

I'm not saying these were nice guys. They were a**holes, but not half as bad as Tony Blair, George Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump or Hilary Clinton.

We vote for the biggest psychopaths. And we still support Saudi Arabia while taking their money to build proselytising Mosques in Ireland to export terrorism to Europe.

Gadaffi had supported international terrorism for decades. The fact he remained in power as long as he did was incredible in itself. He would still be there today if he hadn't attacked his own people in 2011.

I didn't vote any of those people listed but each of those have boundaries they can't cross, term limits and voters who will get rid of them of them. People still voted in those listed, they didn't seize power.

Explain how Obama, Clinton, Blair are more evil than dictators that gas women and kids or blow up jumbo jets filled with holiday makers..

Paul Lee wrote: »

People tend to be a little over-literal on this forum. "Practically China" is obviously not a literal phrase. However the EU is heading in that direction. We may get to a China level of control or we might not. But if we stand around doing nothing it's inevitable. In some ways we're already worse than China, with our transgender and Muslim preoccupations.

So why say it then?

Why not say Ireland is becoming like nazi Germany.

There is no transgender or Muslim preoccupation in Europe. The only ones that obsess over it are those on far right streaming videos online and then people parroting back what they watch on forums like this.

Again what has this got to do with China. You can't be a practising Muslim there and unlikely they would approve mass movement of transgenders either without sending them to re-education camps.

Ireland and Western Europe are about as far removed from China as you will find on planet Earth so your comparison makes zero sense.

We are not police states, we aren't obsessed with the military, we don't identify enemies and use them as rallying cry, not particularly nationalist, free and open elections where anyone including someone who went to school with me and was lower middle class can become a top politican, government does not control all information or have complete power to do as they please.

It's literally me trying to pass off black as white.

Even something like this thread would not be allowed in China. Here you can be critical of the country, the government or individual politicians. Try that in China and see how well it goes..

Harvey Weinstein

There have been movements in the past which could be viewed as corresponding to Satan or Satanism.
Sabbatean Frankism was one, which posited that redemption was achievable only through a transgression all of Gods laws, or a complete inversion of morality.
At its height its said that up to a 3rd of all Jews in the world followed this doctrine. Its leader Sabbatai Zevi was a self proclaimed Jewish Messiah who later converted to Islam.
A century later another self proclaimed Messiah Jacob Frank revived the movement and again pushed to complete inversion of all accepted morals, his followers were known as Sabbatean Frankists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbatai_Zevi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankism

nozzferrahhtoo

Paul Lee wrote: »

Plain wrong.

If you say so, but I would advise you to start representing that reality rather than asserting it because how you have represented yourself so far in the posts I replied to is more congruent with my appraisal than your own. As the Christians you yearn for like to say "By their fruit you shall know them" and I am not sure how convinced anyone else is by your protest here either. I can only say: I am not.

What I am seeing is that you are responding to peoples post in a way that ignores most of the actual substance of their posts, if not the entire content in some cases. And that does not bode well.

Paul Lee wrote: »

The above line was well written, true, and actually I'm rather proud of it. You may have noted it also contained humor

I have lamented openly on this forum on a few occasions that actually being funny no longer appears to be a requisite attribute of "humor". But humor is indeed deeply subjective and sure if you make yourself laugh I suspect that is all you are aiming for. Aim low, you will achieve high as they say.

Paul Lee wrote: »

The discussion would include amongst other things, being incarcerated for life-

You would be in good company with Jesus and the other religionists you yearn to be like then. They are big into things like "Thought Crime" for instance. Such as suggesting that even looking at another woman lustfully convicts you of adultery.

Out here in our real world however there is no basis for locking up people who have committed no actual crimes. I like women sexually, I should not be locked away for being a potential rapist. If I rape someone THEN lock me up. Similarly someone who has a sexual attraction to children has committed no actual crime. So you can "Discuss" it all you like, you will find me on the front line of the battle for the freedom of anyone who has committed no crime, should someone come to harm them or imprison them for no reason.

Worse, while you feel inaction creates a threat to the potential victims (a threat that I think is exaggerated as if there is anywhere near as many paedophiles as some studies have estimated then the VAST majority of them are not committing offences that we know of) then I think YOUR policies would create more victims than they save.

Why? Because to deal with paedophilia we have to understand it. And to understand it we have to study it. And YOUR policies would not make paedophiles readily come forth to be studied. Which means the only ones we get to study, are the offenders who have offended. Not the ones who never offend. Or not the ones who will offend BEFORE they offend. So our data set is limited and curtailed.

It would be like trying to deal with the issue of alcoholism and other alcohol related disorders if the ONLY drinkers of alcohol we could study, interview, observe, or learn about were the ones who somehow ended up in a jail cell. What a limited cross section of the whole we would be left with.

No there is no basis AT ALL for incarceration of the innocent and even proposing it creates more harm than good by pushing data we need to study out of our reach. The victims of that lie at your feet, not ours.

To compound your nonsense about victims however, there is another fact that does not appear congruent with your witch hunt. Which is that many sexual crimes against children are committed by men and women who are not even paedophiles in the first place. There are many paedophiles who commit no sex crimes against children. There are many non-paedophiles who do. So your witch hunt is likely to be much less effective than you imagine.

Paul Lee wrote: »

If you have children yourself then the issue raises to a whole new level where liberty for the pedophile stops being of much concern at all. That's just reality.

Similar to writing FACT in big letters, lines like "That's just reality" are filler designed to try and add substance to an otherwise unsubstantiated assertion. White noise basically. And since I in fact DO have children, two of them in fact, I can tell you that you are talking out of an orifice not normally associated with communication by assigning straw man positions to me on that basis. I have the same opinion NOW on people who have committed no crime as I did before having children.

Paul Lee wrote: »

We can talk to infinity about gender. Until recently there were two

So what? I care only for what is true. It is entirely irrelevant to me what we thought in the past recent OR distant. If you want to talk "to infinity" or, lets face it, at all about a subject based on CURRENT facts then by all means let us do that. If you want to harken wistfully to old data sets however, you are on your own. Leave me out of it.

Paul Lee wrote: »

For the sake of humanity we have to deal with some "norms" Nature does not care about feelings- She is very cruel that way. As far as nature is concerned, with some very minor exceptions there are two genders. That's it.

Again, so what? We are not a slave to nature nor it to us. We are not a slave to evolution, nor it to us. In fact life as a human would likely be quite hellish if we kept ourselves beholden to our evolutionary past, or the laws of evolution that produced us. We may be constrained by the biology we have been given but we are not controlled by it. The constraints afford us an entire landscape of valid moves to make. And I am not going to curtail the valid and useful moves in deference to some nebulous overly personified notion of "nature".

Paul Lee wrote: »

Most of the gender fluid phenomena are purely psychological- Known by professional psychologists as "body dismorphia"

Those things are a lot more than psychological however. They seemingly have very real physical correlates at the level of the brain. And it is by realising and exploring that that we have come up with actual effective treatments and even cures for people who have issues of that type. Such as the "mirror box" used to treat people with Phantom Limb syndrome. People who would not have been treated at all, quite probably, were the medical professionals as intellectually lazy on the subject as yourself.... and had merely flung up their mind offering purely psychological or freudian explanations for what they saw as merely "mad" behaviours.

However since you did not reply to ANY of the content in the link I provided on the subject I can but leave it there. Otherwise I will merely be repeating much of what you already dodged. I would add to it however the very interesting talks on these subject by VS Ramachandran. An actual academic on the subject rather than your vague reference to "some psychologist" you claim to have conversed with who, quite frankly, I find myself unable to believe you actually have.

If nothing else you will probably find his voice, as I have, wonderful to listen to.

Paul Lee wrote: »

Again, I acknowledge your desire to discuss. I'm not interested in getting anyone to agree with me. That's their decision.

Speak for yourself. I am not someone who can "decide" what to believe. I am assured by others that that is a faculty THEY have. That they can "decide" to agree with something, or believe something, or not. I can not do that, never could, and am quite fascinated by the concept that other people can do it. I often wonder how labile their credulity is. Can they, for example, look at a patently empty box and merely DECIDE to believe it full of cash? If so then.... wow I guess.

No, I can not decide to agree with anyone. I am COMPELLED out of my control to agree with them if they can offer arguments, evidence, data and reasoning to substantiate their claims. As you have not done this (and in several areas have, lets be honest, not even made the attempt in the first place at all) I find myself unable to agree with much of what you say.

Though I did make clear in much of the text you did not respond to, where I do actually agree with some of your tangents in a thread that has been, from you, quite a gish gallop of random rabbit holes.

Paul Lee wrote: »

I have to admit I love pissing off liberals

While I question the wisdom of openly admitting, as you pretty much have here, that your goal is to troll.... I should warn you that if wasting your time IS A concern as you have indicated then you should probably not talk much with me. Mainly because in over 10 years on this forum I have found myself to be ENTIRELY untrollable. Not one post, or poster, on this forum has ever managed to "piss" me off.

This is a comment about me though, not you or them. I just know what is required for me to get pissed off. And those things are simply by definition not things that can occur readily here.

So if your goal is to bait an emotional reaction out of people then I can save you a LOT of time by informing you you will fail with me entirely.

Hotblack Desiato

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

At its height its said that up to a 3rd of all Jews in the world followed this doctrine.

Who says?

Harvey Weinstein

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Who says?

The majority of Jewish scholars

Hotblack Desiato

Shuhada Davitt wrote: »

this can be demonstrated by the fact that when i was a teenager in the 90s, the ugly kids, fat kids, kids with acne, kids with horrible personalities - they all had zero confidence.

Bullied into submission for years, but you regard that as the "good old days".

Well I can remember in the 90s when people were doing the exact same thing that you are today, proclaiming that the sky is falling and some period of time 20+ years earlier was "the good old days".

People have been doing this from the dawn of humanity. Well when I say "people" I mean disaffected middle-age crisis sufferers.

Hotblack Desiato

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

The majority of Jewish scholars

And where are they saying this?

(We'll get there in the end...)

Harvey Weinstein

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

And where are they saying this?

(We'll get there in the end...)

Whats your point here? Spit it out

alastair

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

And where are they saying this?

(We'll get there in the end...)

In Irrational Jew Hatred Weekly. Did you not get your’s delivered?

sbsquarepants

Paul Lee wrote: »

Without sacrifice there is no human development. That's just physics.

.

No Paul, physics is the one with the particles and the forces and stuff.

It's Dr Phil you're thinking of:D:D

Harvey Weinstein

alastair wrote: »

In Irrational Jew Hatred Weekly. Did you not get your’s delivered?

If you knew even the slightest thing on the subject you would know that its through Jewish scholarship that we have this information. Both men were regarded as False Messiahs. A quick perusal online will show you that almost all the historical information is available on Jewish sites, from Jewish historians.
You're well off the mark here. An ignorant assumption on your behalf.

Do a bit of research before making accusations.

joe40

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Bullied into submission for years, but you regard that as the "good old days".

Well I can remember in the 90s when people were doing the exact same thing that you are today, proclaiming that the sky is falling and some period of time 20+ years earlier was "the good old days".

People have been doing this from the dawn of humanity. Well when I say "people" I mean disaffected middle-age crisis sufferers.

Exactly, I was a teenager on the 80s and we were the feckless generation, too lazy and self absorbed. Now my generation are calling young people snowflakes. Short memories.

xckjoo

joe40 wrote: »

Exactly, I was a teenager on the 80s and we were the feckless generation, too lazy and self absorbed. Now my generation are calling young people snowflakes. Short memories.

And the people that call others snowflakes are usually the first to cry foul if someone says something to them. The level of projection that people display is amazing. Maybe that explains this thread...

alastair

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

If you knew even the slightest thing on the subject you would know that its through Jewish scholarship that we have this information. Both men were regarded as False Messiahs. A quick perusal online will show you that almost all the historical information is available on Jewish sites, from Jewish historians.
You're well off the mark here. An ignorant assumption on your behalf.

Do a bit of research before making accusations.

Your timeline is a comical car crash of anti-semitism. That was my point. Glad to help.

sbsquarepants

All i know is, hand on heart, if Satan is the man who took us from where we were as a country 30, 40 , 50 , 60 , 70 years ago to where we are now, then hail Satan as far as i'm concerned.
He could have handled the finances a bit better, but then lets face it, he was never going to be an accountant was he!

Harvey Weinstein

alastair wrote: »

Your timeline is a comical car crash of anti-semitism. That was my point. Glad to help.

Show me any Anti Semitic post I made

Shuhada Davitt

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Bullied into submission for years, but you regard that as the "good old days".

Well I can remember in the 90s when people were doing the exact same thing that you are today, proclaiming that the sky is falling and some period of time 20+ years earlier was "the good old days".

People have been doing this from the dawn of humanity. Well when I say "people" I mean disaffected middle-age crisis sufferers.

well, for starters - nice selective quoting...
also - i'm not middle aged - i'm 32 ffs.

where did you presume that what i meant was that it was the "good old days" - you just literally made that up based on the tiny amount of quote you used from my post.

anyway - to simplify it for you - i think that a lot of people in ireland these days are deluded. i think they have become deluded by social media and there are a lot of people (without trying to sound harsh or judging) out there that are going around with too much confidence for who they are... yeah it's great to see it, in ways, but it also proves that people have become so self absorbed that they can't even look in the mirror without thinking falsities.

i get that its a good thing to be confident in yourself - but be that, dont be confident about things that arent real about yourself . it's almost like a reverse eating disorder or something - "im gorgeous and amazing" when, in reality everybody is mediocre and nobody is "amazing".

this is a new thing. it's because of filters on peoples selfies they think they look like that, - they dont. people going around playing out their "lifes' movie" in their head as if they're in new york in a big scene of a film. ... i cant describe it any other way than basically - people have become completely self obsessed whilst also being obsessed with made-up "qualitys" that they THINK they have. but they dont.

it's narcissism basically, and i always find it amusing to see such high level of narcissism in the most butt ugly munters... like - where do they get this idea???

hopefully that clears it up for you.
it's a good and bad thing, but i never said that 20 years ago was the "good old days" - and i'm far from middle aged

alastair

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

Show me any Anti Semitic post I made

Your entire timeline is a litany on tinfoil Gemma conspiracies, anti immigrant guff, islamophobia, homophobia and anti-Semitism. It’s like a cheat card for the most inane alt-****e bingo.

Harvey Weinstein

alastair wrote: »

Your entire timeline is a litany on tinfoil Gemma conspiracies, anti immigrant guff, islamophobia, homophobia and anti-Semitism. It’s like a cheat card for the most inane alt-****e bingo.

Thats a no then

Hotblack Desiato

Shuhada Davitt wrote: »

well, for starters - nice selective quoting...
also - i'm not middle aged - i'm 32 ffs.

If you were born in 1987 you weren't a teenager in the 90s.
Now maybe you were born in the last 20 days of December 1986, which would make you "a teenager in the 90s" as you asserted for all of at most twenty days.

Don't complain about people getting the wrong impression if you write nonsense.

where did you presume that what i meant was that it was the "good old days" - you just literally made that up based on the tiny amount of quote you used from my post.

You wrote about a time when people you deem ugly had "zero confidence" and compared it unfavourably to today. If that's not an appeal to a mythical "good old days" (as well as a sickening endorsement of bullying) then I don't know what is. Also a small proportion of complete fcukwits on twitter or instagram are not representative of society.

anyway - to simplify it for you - i think that a lot of people in ireland these days are deluded.

You're not wrong there and threads like these are the proof.

people have become completely self obsessed whilst also being obsessed with made-up "qualitys" that they THINK they have. but they dont.

So what? How does that affect your life in any way?

it's narcissism basically

I can conceive of little more narcissitic than the idea expressed in threads like this that everyone must look like me, think like me, be the same sexual orientation or religion as me, have the same ethnic origin as me, have the same ideas in relation to gender and gender roles as me.

Hotblack Desiato

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

Whats your point here? Spit it out

That you're likely to be spouting sh!t because you won't provide references to back it up.

So far, QED.